Author
Topic: There is a light at the end of the tunnel Part II: Best of 3 Sets (Read 6224 times)

Do you know what tennis will be like without Rafa, Murray, Ferrer, Simon, and Monfils? Tennis without the soap opera during points.

I'm here to formally make amends with today's players for having thrown them all under the bus for the sins of a handful of bad apples.

I will be proven right that this era of "last man standing" tennis will pass sooner than you think but not necessarily for the tweaks I've mentioned. This era will pass when these guys haven't the legs and lungs any longer.

Babbs, I get what you are saying here but that's what everyone thought after Sampras, Guga and the likes retired and then we had a brand new set of players who took tennis rivalry to an all new level. I expect that for a few years after these guys retire it will be a period of lull only to see good set of players (with variety) coming in.

Alex, I exclude Nole despite being a major offender. With Nole, ping-pong on steroids isn't his M.O. He's just versatile and fit enough to play it whereas the others are not: ping-pong on steroids is their M.O. They don't have options, therefore Nole gets lulled into "survival of the fittest" tennis.

Alex, I exclude Nole despite being a major offender. With Nole, ping-pong on steroids isn't his M.O. He's just versatile and fit enough to play it whereas the others are not: ping-pong on steroids is their M.O. They don't have options, therefore Nole gets lulled into "survival of the fittest" tennis.

Then by this argument, Murray can be excused too, no? As Hercs makes a point, there is no scope for variety when the balls are coming in at those speeds. Its just not possible to slice from the back of the court unless the opponent gives room for it. If you want to win, you've got to play the game the others are playing albeit at a higher level and consistency. That's what Nole did and that's what gave him his titles and ranking. Fed is a completely diff player and I agree with you that he has been remarkably doing well at his age. That said, Fed is still a tremendously fit player and his stamina is such that he could give the young ones a run for their money. Its his stamina that keeps him alive in 5 set matches, along with his variety. So again, stamina and endurance matters just the same. You've still got to do all the retrieving to win matches and when you are retrieving so much, variety takes a backseat.

Alex, I exclude Nole despite being a major offender. With Nole, ping-pong on steroids isn't his M.O. He's just versatile and fit enough to play it whereas the others are not: ping-pong on steroids is their M.O. They don't have options, therefore Nole gets lulled into "survival of the fittest" tennis.

Basically in a way, I would exclude Nadal, Nole and ofc Fed.Murray showed few times he can be more than just 'ping pong on steroids' (Wimbledon final vs Fed), but few matches don't count, he showed us what he chose to play.

Alex, I exclude Nole despite being a major offender. With Nole, ping-pong on steroids isn't his M.O. He's just versatile and fit enough to play it whereas the others are not: ping-pong on steroids is their M.O. They don't have options, therefore Nole gets lulled into "survival of the fittest" tennis.

Then by this argument, Murray can be excused too, no? As Hercs makes a point, there is no scope for variety when the balls are coming in at those speeds. Its just not possible to slice from the back of the court unless the opponent gives room for it. If you want to win, you've got to play the game the others are playing albeit at a higher level and consistency. That's what Nole did and that's what gave him his titles and ranking. Fed is a completely diff player and I agree with you that he has been remarkably doing well at his age. That said, Fed is still a tremendously fit player and his stamina is such that he could give the young ones a run for their money. Its his stamina that keeps him alive in 5 set matches, along with his variety. So again, stamina and endurance matters just the same. You've still got to do all the retrieving to win matches and when you are retrieving so much, variety takes a backseat.

Regarding winning: I don't care if Nole beats Rafa in 6 hours or Murray beats Nole in 5 1/2 hours. That's way besides the point I'm making. The greater point is, in the crunch time of a major tournament (Rafa) if not throughout (the other 4), these guys play last man standing tennis. That's why only Nole gets a pass *despite* finding himself lulled into playing gladiator tennis. If neither player is capable of passing the other, get up, go to the bathroom, make yourself a sandwich; they're going to be out there a while. Take these 5 guys off the tennis court and tennis is played at a different pace.

Sunday's final was one of the best thing that's happened to tennis in a long while for it exposed the warts of gladiator tennis: the indefatigable are not that at all, fatigue makes cowards of even the best players in the world, and the quality of tennis produced by two tired and timid players is on par with women's tennis. Say what you will about my critique of these 5 players, but you cannot argue the facts about Sunday's final, for it was two worthy.

Do you know what tennis will be like without Rafa, Murray, Ferrer, Simon, and Monfils? Tennis without the soap opera during points.

I'm here to formally make amends with today's players for having thrown them all under the bus for the sins of a handful of bad apples.

I will be proven right that this era of "last man standing" tennis will pass sooner than you think but not necessarily for the tweaks I've mentioned. This era will pass when these guys haven't the legs and lungs any longer.

Monfils reminds me of Roger in his youth. Roger said when he was young, he wanted to make the 'wow' shots to please the crowd.... then later, he said he wanted to "win" tournaments instead. Monfils likes to make those "wow" shots, sliding all over the place, running for every single thing...making the 'hard' shots...but he isn't "winning tournaments". He spends most of his time on the injured reserves than he plays. So....I don't miss Monfils (won't miss him) when he stops playing because he hasn't really done 'enough' to be 'missed'. Just my opinion.

I was reading tweets by some tennis writers. I don't read much of what anyone says so you may already be familiar with Jon Wertheim's comments. I started following Ben Rothenberg (NY Times) on twitter recently; 140 characters of someone telling me what I just watched is tolerable But today I read something that caught my attention. Ben said, "(the roof) wouldn't have been a problem if they played best of 3 sets."

I never considered this because I am a best of 5 sets man through and through. Never once have I even mentioned it.

If today's players are changing the way the game is being played, however, best of 3 sets makes sense, even to me. I only care about a match's duration - hey! with best of 3 sets you can get rid of the 3rd set TB and play it out!

I guess men can say, equal pay for equal play, alas!

But, others, like Wertheim and Navratilova, say it will cut down injuries. I found Jon's comments; apparently he's a "Best of 3" advocate. Notice he talks about TV, too

Quote

Tennis writer Jon Wertheim says it's time to get rid of best-of-five set matches.

Wertheim: "Enough with best-of-five sets at the Slams, at least until the final. It's both impractical and tone deaf to the times. The sport has never been more grueling, more likely to cause injury (see: Nadal, Rafael). It's never been more important to accommodate television. (Snicker if you like, but it's naive to assert otherwise.) Why are we doing this to already-tired players? Why are we acting so inhospitable to television? These best-of-three matches were fantastic. Perfect amount of time. They captured fans, but still provided spellbinding drama. Even after the long matches, players could return the following day. Not once did I encounter a fan or player who said, "That was a great match but I feel shortchanged. I wish they had played an additional 90 minutes."

Yeah, no s**t!!!!

With Best of 3 we can have a few of those 3-6, 7-6 (5), 19-17 matches that go 4 1/2 hours. That's a not so small price to pay to get rid of 5+ hour matches once and for all. And since the powers that be are in love with their product, the change should be made. You know, if you like to ride the upset wagon, think about how many times in their careers the big 4 trailed after 3 sets...

Do you know what tennis will be like without Rafa, Murray, Ferrer, Simon, and Monfils? Tennis without the soap opera during points.

I'm here to formally make amends with today's players for having thrown them all under the bus for the sins of a handful of bad apples.

I will be proven right that this era of "last man standing" tennis will pass sooner than you think but not necessarily for the tweaks I've mentioned. This era will pass when these guys haven't the legs and lungs any longer.

As usual I agree with THE Man!

Logged

I was at this casino minding my own business, and this guy came up to me and said, "You're gonna have to move, you're blocking a fire exit." As though if there was a fire, I wasn't gonna run. If you're flammible and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit. - Mitch Hedberg

BS, if they went to best of 3 at slams I'd stop watching tennis. Navratilova is a moron for saying this. I respect her as a player, she is a horrible commentator ... She knows sh!t, can't listen to her at all, she shouldn't be commenting anything about the men tennis, period ...

This all comes again and again to the fact that all courts pretty much play the same. Do you ask yourself why players nowadays play the way they do? Do you understand why Sampras, Ivanisevic, Edberg used to S&V and nobody is doing that nowadays?

Players had to adjust to current conditions. People didn't want to see any more this scenario ... 1. serve 2. run to the net/volley 3. finish the point.

Modern players are 'products' of modern surfaces. No matter how aggressive you are, you are going to get involved in a 30 shot rallies nowadays, even on grass ... everything is much slower, yet have to be so much fitter and athletic than back in 80/90s.

So, the question is, do you want 1,2,3, bang 1 minute game or, 30/40 shot rallies that go forever ... ??? Or do you want something in between?

so it's not that much about players, it's more about the homogenization of surfaces. Many tennis fans complain about it ... they want 'old grass', faster HC etc.

Everyone is playing baseline game nowadays. Well, Llodra and Stepanek are old school, it's a joy to watch them but they will never get anywhere ...

Babs, No I don't want to watch 6 hours matches every day ... but slams are best of 5, it should stay that way. Mix things up, make some courts faster and we could enjoy something in between. Speed up the courts and players will adjust again ...

For too long I've believed: "if only we could figure out a way to grow more offensive minded players, then matches would be shorter and just as exciting (see Fed-Shakhovsky)..."

But herc and everyone have finally convinced me that offensive players are dinosaurs soon to be fossils. So the more I think about it, the better Best of 3 sets sounds.

No one loves to sit at the US Open, among thousands of tennis nuts from around the world, and watch tennis from 11am-9 or 10pm more than me. I've done it dozens of time. But sitting alone on my ass in front of my TV for 8, 9, 10 hours to watch 2 matches in the middle of summer???? Retarded. It wasn't meant to be like that. Cricket was, not tennis.

I want to watch tennis then see another live human face, play a few sets, go watch the red hot Chicago Fire on my days off. I want it all when I'm home! 5-10 hours of TV watching????

For too long I've believed: "if only we could figure out a way to grow more offensive minded players, then matches would be shorter and just as exciting (see Fed-Shakhovsky)..."

But herc and everyone have finally convinced me that offensive players are dinosaurs soon to be fossils. So the more I think about it, the better Best of 3 sets sounds.

No one loves to sit at the US Open, among thousands of tennis nuts from around the world, and watch tennis from 11am-9 or 10pm more than me. I've done it dozens of time. But sitting alone on my ass in front of my TV for 8, 9, 10 hours to watch 2 matches in the middle of summer???? Retarded. It wasn't meant to be like that. Cricket was, not tennis.

I want to watch tennis then see another live human face, play a few sets, go watch the red hot Chicago Fire on my days off. I want it all when I'm home! 5-10 hours of TV watching????

For too long I've believed: "if only we could figure out a way to grow more offensive minded players, then matches would be shorter and just as exciting (see Fed-Shakhovsky)..."

But herc and everyone have finally convinced me that offensive players are dinosaurs soon to be fossils. So the more I think about it, the better Best of 3 sets sounds.

No one loves to sit at the US Open, among thousands of tennis nuts from around the world, and watch tennis from 11am-9 or 10pm more than me. I've done it dozens of time. But sitting alone on my ass in front of my TV for 8, 9, 10 hours to watch 2 matches in the middle of summer???? Retarded. It wasn't meant to be like that. Cricket was, not tennis.

I want to watch tennis then see another live human face, play a few sets, go watch the red hot Chicago Fire on my days off. I want it all when I'm home! 5-10 hours of TV watching????

f**kING FAIL OF EPIC PROPORTIONS

Get off your fat a$$ and go for a walk.

lol

My life is far more interesting and fun than yours. Go for a walk?!?!!???? I've already listed a few things I can do that are far better than what you find exciting trolling from your mother's basement.

BS, if they went to best of 3 at slams I'd stop watching tennis. Navratilova is a moron for saying this. I respect her as a player, she is a horrible commentator ... She knows sh!t, can't listen to her at all, she shouldn't be commenting anything about the men tennis, period ...

This all comes again and again to the fact that all courts pretty much play the same. Do you ask yourself why players nowadays play the way they do? Do you understand why Sampras, Ivanisevic, Edberg used to S&V and nobody is doing that nowadays?

Players had to adjust to current conditions. People didn't want to see any more this scenario ... 1. serve 2. run to the net/volley 3. finish the point.

Modern players are 'products' of modern surfaces. No matter how aggressive you are, you are going to get involved in a 30 shot rallies nowadays, even on grass ... everything is much slower, yet have to be so much fitter and athletic than back in 80/90s.

So, the question is, do you want 1,2,3, bang 1 minute game or, 30/40 shot rallies that go forever ... ??? Or do you want something in between?

so it's not that much about players, it's more about the homogenization of surfaces. Many tennis fans complain about it ... they want 'old grass', faster HC etc.

Everyone is playing baseline game nowadays. Well, Llodra and Stepanek are old school, it's a joy to watch them but they will never get anywhere ...

Babs, No I don't want to watch 6 hours matches every day ... but slams are best of 5, it should stay that way. Mix things up, make some courts faster and we could enjoy something in between. Speed up the courts and players will adjust again ...

Dude, do like me and get over it.

Keep the courts uniform speed. Fans obviously love 30 ball rallies.

Time for some of us to accept that that's the way it's going to remain. No one, not even me, wants to return to servefests. It would be awful if Jerzy held at love or 15 every service game but he and Murray played TB after TB. That's what a faster surface at Wimbledon would produce.

Fed, Tsonga, Haas, Llodra, Lopez, Stakhovsky and a few others have proven you can still play aggressive or all-court tennis on today's courts against today's "player," albeit with mixed results. Us anthropologists have to appreciate the few bones we get tossed. I really enjoyed the Fed-Shakhovsky match. They still happen. I'll take what I can get. I have had no choice, anyway.

I was reading tweets by some tennis writers. I don't read much of what anyone says so you may already be familiar with Jon Wertheim's comments. I started following Ben Rothenberg (NY Times) on twitter recently; 140 characters of someone telling me what I just watched is tolerable But today I read something that caught my attention. Ben said, "(the roof) wouldn't have been a problem if they played best of 3 sets."

I never considered this because I am a best of 5 sets man through and through. Never once have I even mentioned it.

If today's players are changing the way the game is being played, however, best of 3 sets makes sense, even to me. I only care about a match's duration - hey! with best of 3 sets you can get rid of the 3rd set TB and play it out!

I guess men can say, equal pay for equal play, alas!

But, others, like Wertheim and Navratilova, say it will cut down injuries. I found Jon's comments; apparently he's a "Best of 3" advocate. Notice he talks about TV, too

Quote

Tennis writer Jon Wertheim says it's time to get rid of best-of-five set matches.

Wertheim: "Enough with best-of-five sets at the Slams, at least until the final. It's both impractical and tone deaf to the times. The sport has never been more grueling, more likely to cause injury (see: Nadal, Rafael). It's never been more important to accommodate television. (Snicker if you like, but it's naive to assert otherwise.) Why are we doing this to already-tired players? Why are we acting so inhospitable to television? These best-of-three matches were fantastic. Perfect amount of time. They captured fans, but still provided spellbinding drama. Even after the long matches, players could return the following day. Not once did I encounter a fan or player who said, "That was a great match but I feel shortchanged. I wish they had played an additional 90 minutes."

Yeah, no s**t!!!!

With Best of 3 we can have a few of those 3-6, 7-6 (5), 19-17 matches that go 4 1/2 hours. That's a not so small price to pay to get rid of 5+ hour matches once and for all. And since the powers that be are in love with their product, the change should be made. You know, if you like to ride the upset wagon, think about how many times in their careers the big 4 trailed after 3 sets...

MANY!!

If tennis went to Bo3, then not even the final should be Bo5. Imagine this scenario, the SFists are two excellent unfit guys, one fit but not so excellent guy, and one walking bye. Then it all comes down to the draw. The fit guy has no business against those excellent but unfit guys in Bo3 semi. But if he gets the walking bye in the semis, he'll outlast the excellent but unfit guys in the final.

I was reading tweets by some tennis writers. I don't read much of what anyone says so you may already be familiar with Jon Wertheim's comments. I started following Ben Rothenberg (NY Times) on twitter recently; 140 characters of someone telling me what I just watched is tolerable But today I read something that caught my attention. Ben said, "(the roof) wouldn't have been a problem if they played best of 3 sets."

I never considered this because I am a best of 5 sets man through and through. Never once have I even mentioned it.

If today's players are changing the way the game is being played, however, best of 3 sets makes sense, even to me. I only care about a match's duration - hey! with best of 3 sets you can get rid of the 3rd set TB and play it out!

I guess men can say, equal pay for equal play, alas!

But, others, like Wertheim and Navratilova, say it will cut down injuries. I found Jon's comments; apparently he's a "Best of 3" advocate. Notice he talks about TV, too

Quote

Tennis writer Jon Wertheim says it's time to get rid of best-of-five set matches.

Wertheim: "Enough with best-of-five sets at the Slams, at least until the final. It's both impractical and tone deaf to the times. The sport has never been more grueling, more likely to cause injury (see: Nadal, Rafael). It's never been more important to accommodate television. (Snicker if you like, but it's naive to assert otherwise.) Why are we doing this to already-tired players? Why are we acting so inhospitable to television? These best-of-three matches were fantastic. Perfect amount of time. They captured fans, but still provided spellbinding drama. Even after the long matches, players could return the following day. Not once did I encounter a fan or player who said, "That was a great match but I feel shortchanged. I wish they had played an additional 90 minutes."

Yeah, no s**t!!!!

With Best of 3 we can have a few of those 3-6, 7-6 (5), 19-17 matches that go 4 1/2 hours. That's a not so small price to pay to get rid of 5+ hour matches once and for all. And since the powers that be are in love with their product, the change should be made. You know, if you like to ride the upset wagon, think about how many times in their careers the big 4 trailed after 3 sets...

MANY!!

If tennis went to Bo3, then not even the final should be Bo5. Imagine this scenario, the SFists are two excellent unfit guys, one fit but not so excellent guy, and one walking bye. Then it all comes down to the draw. The fit guy has no business against those excellent but unfit guys in Bo3 semi. But if he gets the walking bye in the semis, he'll outlast the excellent but unfit guys in the final.

There's something seriously wrong with a 37' 6-1 set with absolutely no rallies...

Nole came out on fire in the 4th set. So many of these orchestrated Best of 5 sets matches feature a long intermission. Just make every set count now. No more unwatchable walk throughs that only serve to give the losing player an opportunity to rest and extend the match by 40'.